Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)2) I had done law review3) I had targeted the New York market.

Last edited by Hitachi on Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks, rejected everywhere.Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)2) I had done law review3) I had targeted the New York market.

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks, rejected everywhere.Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)2) I had done law review3) I had targeted the New York market.

I know people with significantly lower stats, who didn't do any of those three things, and who are sitting on offers in major markets (i.e., not NYC, and not a secondary market).

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks, rejected everywhere.Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)2) I had done law review3) I had targeted the New York market.

I know people with significantly lower stats, who didn't do any of those three things, and who are sitting on offers in major markets (i.e., not NYC, and not a secondary market).

Just because those weren't necessary for others doesn't mean they wouldn't have been sufficient for me.

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks, rejected everywhere.Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)2) I had done law review3) I had targeted the New York market.

I know people with significantly lower stats, who didn't do any of those three things, and who are sitting on offers in major markets (i.e., not NYC, and not a secondary market).

Just because those weren't necessary for others doesn't mean they wouldn't have been sufficient for me.

That's cute, I suppose. But your list isn't really exhaustive (and I am here anticipating your response, where you will say that it didn't purport to be). Maybe your interviewing skills weren't up to par? We could speculate, for sure, but unless you actually asked for some constructive criticism (which no one will ever give you), you have no way of knowing whether any of the above would have been sufficient either.

Poor interviewing would be my fault too, though. This thread is supposed to be judging the impact of the economy on recruitment so, while my anecdote is relevant, I am merely qualifying my results to show that it is not the economy (at least solely) that is causing it. But good sleuthing there to detect that a list starting with "at least" isn't exhaustive.

Again, very cute. Of course, there's also the other (equally probable) interpretation that the "at least" phrase was meant to indicate that the list was exhaustive, and that its components were each sufficient conditions. But... this is neither here nor there.

Also, your qualification of your results was just as useless as your quip. It does little to absolve the economy. If the economy had been better, for example, your interest in corporate law wouldn't have been seen as a negative, and you would have fulfilled a sufficient condition (as you call it) for your employment. In fact, not being on law review, expressing interest in corporate law, and not targeting a major market would have, in a prior economy, pretty much guaranteed a job (for a person with your credentials). In this instance, I think the economy is the sole cause of your quibbles.

Anonymous User wrote:Again, very cute. Of course, there's also the other (equally probable) interpretation that the "at least" phrase was meant to indicate that the list was exhaustive, and that its components were each sufficient conditions.

Huh? No it really couldn't have meant that, at least in English. The "any" indicated that the components were sufficient conditions, and the "of at least" indicated that those three were the lower limit of possible sufficient conditions.

I agree of course that I would have gotten a job in another economy even with those "mistakes". My point was only that the severity of my bad result exaggerates the severity of the economy.

Last edited by Hitachi on Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)2) I had done law review3) I had targeted the New York market.

Ouch. My results are perhaps more ridiculous, though there is still some slim hope:

-T14, well within top 5%, LR, want to do IP litigation + have a technical background, 19 screening, 14 callbacks, 0-10 on callbacks so far, with 4 pending...

Not sure what to make of it, as the comparatively favorable ratio of screening interviews to callbacks seems to suggest I am not a horrible interview. But I definitely wouldn't assume that litigation interest or LR would have helped...

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)2) I had done law review3) I had targeted the New York market.

Ouch. My results are perhaps more ridiculous, though there is still some slim hope:

-T14, well within top 5%, LR, want to do IP litigation + have a technical background, 19 screening, 14 callbacks, 0-10 on callbacks so far, with 4 pending...

Not sure what to make of it, as the comparatively favorable ratio of screening interviews to callbacks seems to suggest I am not a horrible interview. But I definitely wouldn't assume that litigation interest or LR would have helped...

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)2) I had done law review3) I had targeted the New York market.

I expressed zero interest in litigation but did ok. I think your choice of market may have been a bigger problem. I know dudes at CCN in the top 5% + LR who got shut out of DC/Chi.

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)2) I had done law review3) I had targeted the New York market.

Ouch. My results are perhaps more ridiculous, though there is still some slim hope:

-T14, well within top 5%, LR, want to do IP litigation + have a technical background, 19 screening, 14 callbacks, 0-10 on callbacks so far, with 4 pending...

Not sure what to make of it, as the comparatively favorable ratio of screening interviews to callbacks seems to suggest I am not a horrible interview. But I definitely wouldn't assume that litigation interest or LR would have helped...

CCN, probably around top 1/3, secondary journal, extensive prior public interest WE, expressed interest in relatively niche area of practice and desire for career in both private and public sectors. 17 screening interviews, 4 CBs, went to 2, accepted an offer from my top choice, a V20, in my specific area of interest.

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)2) I had done law review3) I had targeted the New York market.

Ouch. My results are perhaps more ridiculous, though there is still some slim hope:

-T14, well within top 5%, LR, want to do IP litigation + have a technical background, 19 screening, 14 callbacks, 0-10 on callbacks so far, with 4 pending...

Not sure what to make of it, as the comparatively favorable ratio of screening interviews to callbacks seems to suggest I am not a horrible interview. But I definitely wouldn't assume that litigation interest or LR would have helped...

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)2) I had done law review3) I had targeted the New York market.

Ouch. My results are perhaps more ridiculous, though there is still some slim hope:

-T14, well within top 5%, LR, want to do IP litigation + have a technical background, 19 screening, 14 callbacks, 0-10 on callbacks so far, with 4 pending...

Not sure what to make of it, as the comparatively favorable ratio of screening interviews to callbacks seems to suggest I am not a horrible interview. But I definitely wouldn't assume that litigation interest or LR would have helped...